Another Clifford Ham boondoggle in San Diego

More false promises of tunnels reaching out from jails to courthouses. Don’t say we didn’t tell you so because we’ve stated many times that ALL tunnel promises are false promises made to win local support of the projects and penciled out upon approval.

What we find most disturbing is that Clifford Ham has a track record of building non-functional sally ports and the non-functional part is that prisoner transport buses can’t navigate the ramps and bottom out. Yet he remains the judicial branch’s lead architect who listens to – or takes advice from no one and knows better than all of us. One would think that with sallyport flub after sallyport flub, the council would call on his lack of competency and – at the very least – ensure that he has nothing to do with sallyport design. Instead, he gets raises, promotions and new projects for his utter lack of competence.

At the end of the ACJ’s communique we highlighted a sentence about the AOC cleaning house with respect to facilities management – a few of whom were collecting kickbacks and referral fees from AOC vendors that they hired to do the work. Let’s be clear: These terminations were necessary. But what is also necessary is a criminal investigation and prosecution of those who collected kickbacks and referral fees from those that eventually got the work. Why will that never happen? Because the judicial branch relies upon rules of court, has no internal law enforcement mechanism and will not permit outside auditors or investigators to investigate and pursue charges against the crooks they fired, less it sully their reputation. But there is one thing that we can all be comforted in knowing: The JC is nearly out of money for new projects due to two Clifford Ham projects – One being Long Beach and the other being San Diego which represents more than 20% of where the money went. Hopefully, with the end of the bond money coming up fast that there is an end to the capital programs that they paid for.

We bring to your attention a story that aired on San Diego’s NBC 7 on the delays and shortcomings associated with the new San Diego courthouse. The story features Alliance director Runston “Tony” Maino’s blunt criticisms of the project. You can read and view the story at this link.

The grand opening of San Diego’s opulent new skyscraper courthouse—built at a cost of over $555 million in money from SB 1407, the 2002 bill that allotted $5 billion in bond-backed state funding for courthouse construction—has been pushed back a few months. But the delay is the least of this courthouse’s problems. The biggest issue is that the new courthouse lacks a tunnel connecting it to the jail; that part of the project was scrapped as a cost-cutting measure. For now, in-custody defendants will have to be transported a distance of two blocks by bus or van, at considerable expense to somebody, and at risk to the public.

Even that less-than-satisfactory workaround has a hitch: A bus can’t drive through the new courthouse’s sally port without scraping its undercarriage. You can check out that story here. While some concrete may now have been jack-hammered away to permit buses to enter and exit safely, what could explain such a complete lack of foresight?

Contributing to the overall cost is the fact that the old courthouse site, the sale of which was supposed to offset the cost of the new building, can’t be sold very easily. Portions of the old building sit in a category 5 earthquake zone. The old building might be sitting vacant and crumbling for a good long time until somebody buys it and tears it down—with the Judicial Council footing the bill for maintaining it in the meantime.

Moreover, the new building, as gargantuan as it is, has only half the space for the storage of exhibits as did the old building. You can read all about that problem at this link.

In a related story, the roof literally buckled in on the Los Angeles Mental Health Courthouse last November. The courthouse, a set of three repurposed buildings from an old mustard factory, had been slated for replacement at least as far back as 2008. Problems with the roof had been reported as early as 2002. The plan was to convert the underused courthouse in Hollywood into a mental health courthouse with money from SB 1407. The AOC budgeted the job at $26 million.

But the SB 1407 money dried up, thanks in large part to bloated construction projects like San Diego’s. L.A. will have to fix up the Hollywood Courthouse with its own funds.

The last L.A. presiding judge described the Mental Health Courthouse as “the worst courthouse in the state.” How did this problem courthouse not get replaced while San Diego got a half-billion-dollar skyscraper that won’t meet its needs? Why did a handful of spectacular architectural showpieces get built across the state while courthouses in desperate need of replacement or repair continue to rot?

The problem stems from a broken system that set construction priorities badly—as noted by an outside audit back in 2012—and manages construction projects poorly.

The Council’s apologists are quick to claim that the creation of a new governance structure for capital projects has fixed the system. But the fix, if it is one, came a little late; now that the construction money’s running out, there aren’t many capital projects left to supervise.

Defenders also point out that the AOC’s director, Martin Hoshino, recently cleaned house at the AOC’s Real Estate and Facilities Management Office. That drastic step, while welcome, only serves to validate what we’ve been saying for years: The construction and facilities maintenance side of the AOC is a troubled outfit that needs outside auditing.

Besides, it’s not enough to clean house. This house needs to be gutted and rebuilt, not just cleaned. The problems that led to massive overspending and bad priorities are structural. They stem from a lack of local court representation at the Judicial Council and an absence of meaningful oversight at the AOC.

The Judicial Council recently placed small blue signs at the judges’ entrances to many courthouses that read, “This facility is operated by The Judicial Council of California.” The sign instructs us to report any problems to the Council.

“it’s not enough to clean house. This house needs to be gutted and rebuilt, not just cleaned…Judicial Council, we’d like to report a problem. It’s you.”

Great writing, Judge Mano. Right on point. Maybe it would help if you all reported the ongoing problems caused by judicial branch incestuous-unprosecuted-crime to the state’s new attorney general? I’ve heard he’s open to investigating public corruption.

“The problems that led to massive overspending and bad priorities are structural. They stem from a lack of local court representation at the Judicial Council and an absence of meaningful oversight at the AOC.”

I couldn’t agree more.

“Defenders also point out that the AOC’s director, Martin Hoshino, recently cleaned house at the AOC’s Real Estate and Facilities Management Office. That drastic step, while welcome, only serves to validate what we’ve been saying for years: The construction and facilities maintenance side of the AOC is a troubled outfit that needs outside auditing.”

I couldn’t agree more here either, having witnessed some of those referral fee situations much to the chagrin of those that accepted and cashed those checks. It was blatant and open and although the AOC has policies and procedures, there is no cop on the beat.

“On any given day in California – which has one of the largest prison systems in the country and has long struggled with overcrowding – roughly 46,000 people are in local jails waiting for trial or sentencing because they can’t pay bail.

That means people who are innocent or accused of minor offenses are trapped. From 2011 to 2015, one in three people jailed for felony accusations in California were never found guilty, according to a recent report from Human Rights Watch. In a two-year period across six counties, the government spent $37.5m jailing people who ultimately faced no charges or had cases dropped.”

It took nearly three years to produce the same tired old ideas. End trial courts as their own employers, eliminate court reporters, and more money for new technology please. They even mentioned regional offices but CA Courts already went there and it was a total bust. I swear the JC Staff (AOC insiders) could have produced these exact same ideas in 24 hours from getting the assignment instead of taking three years to pretend they developed something new. It’s really sad but funny too. Lol

No mention of caseloads dropping like crazy statewide since 2009. No discussion of self driving cars impacting the number of traffic tickets in the future and how that will eliminate those fees the branch relies on. No talk about the AOC moving to Sacramento to save the state some money. No talk about what will happen when the branch judcial and staff needs when the branch goes from 6.8 million cases down to 1.8 million cases (traffic infractions are 5 million of their cases). It is like they just put their heads in the sand and hope things will be the same. It’s the blockbuster video store method for planning for the future.

My view is this is a report they had to prepare for the Governor and technically it was done. I hope the other branches follow their own ideas for innovating and reforming CA Courts as there is virtually no leadership from the boring insiders on the Judicial Council. What a waste of taxpayer money to receive this stale report as the final product.

Are you really all that surprised, Maxrebo? I’m not. Not one bit. Not even a teeny tiny bit.

Queen Feckless should call the “Futures Report” for the California Courts what it really is: The FUBAR report. Just like the California Judicial Branch itself, and the branch “leadership” that has made it that way.

Not surprised either Wendy. I knew this was going to be a very weak document because the same kiss ass “leaders” are always at the table on the public’s dime. That’s why I have been saying for months where is this report? Why is it taking so long to produce it? Look at the names on the court adminstrators on this Futures Report. The usual cast of characters who have run CA Courts for 15 years. Jody Patel should have been gone years ago! She is a nightmare.

What I am sadly surprized by is how the other branches in California don’t just rip the Chief’s top leaders to shreds and demand new adminstrators all over the state or funding will be cut. Martin Hoshino has not cleaned house in CA Courts at all. Also the other branches still have not demanded new leadership on the Judicial Council and that is so desperately overdue. The Mike Roddy’s, David Yamasaki, Jake Chatters, Mike Planet, and Stephen Nash yes men court executives who are each paid as much or more than judges have nothing to offer so they gotto be removed. These were the CCMS supporters who failed the CA public badly. These were the folks who said raise the fines and fees on those traffic cases to pay for everything knowing full well it was wrong to make traffic judges partisans in those traffic infraction cases. Where is the accountability for their roles in that? They should all be fired!

It reminds me of the board of Wells Fargo staying in place after their execs had their staff create thousands of fake accounts in order to charge their own customers more fees. Horrible stuff. The staff who created those fake accounts, as told to by management, got laid off but the board who allowed it remains? The Board of Directors should also be gone from Wells Fargo so there is real accountability and a cultural change in that organization. At least the public has options with a bank we can take our money someplace else and not buy their stock either in protest. We can’t take our court cases anyplace else. So the other branches have a DUTY to check the CA Courts now! This is nealry 20 years of unchecked mismangement. The Judical Council leaders are like North Korea leadersin their closed ranks and support of a truly disfuctional system.

A major shake down is still needed within the Judicial Council. There is no accountability or ownership for past mistakes and Martin Hoshino should face the fire immediately at the Legislature and with the Governor. He did exactly as the Chief wished and just pretended to reform the branch but did almost nothing. He and the Chief have to clean house for real this time and do so fast or the future is not going to be the way they hope in that paper weight of a report.

The Legislature and Governor should demand real changes so it is not only yes men appointees of the Chief on the Judicial Council and running CA trial courts. The Alliance needs many members on the Judicial Council and trial courts need to look outside for new adminstrators who will fight to do what is right and not not kiss ass to the Chief to get money.

All true, MaxRebo. All so very, very true. And none of it will happen. Not now, not tomorrow, not next month, or next year. Not ever.

“We won’t touch the judges”: As has been said by members of the State Legislature, the Governor’s office, the California Department of Justice/the California Attorney, General’s Office, the U.S. Department of Justice, every outside enforcement office, every person of authority, every single one that could do something about the fiscal irresponsibility, mismanagement, and outright fraud and corruption in the administration of the California Judicial Branch and has purposefully and intentionally chosen not to: “We won’t touch the judges.”

So dream on Max Rebo. Dream on. And sadly, that is all it is and all it ever will be – a dream. The Teflon Effect is in full force and effect at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, and in full force and effect it will remain. It is being allowed to happen. It is being permitted. As branch “leadership” maintains to this day, and has been proven time and time and time again, they can do whatever they want because there is no one to stop them.

“A major shake down is still needed within the Judicial Council. There is no accountability or ownership for past mistakes”….and no fear of any real personal punishment, even when caught red handed. I think that’s a key area in dire need of change.

The word “prosecution” needs to be added to the equation for things to really change. Much of what has been done and has been reported for years on JCW definitely falls into the category of public corruption.

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors is seeking applicants who wish to serve the unexpired term of the elected San Diego County District Attorney.

The San Diego County District Attorney’s Office prosecutes felony crimes throughout San Diego County [with the exception of felonies occurring in the local courts].

The San Diego District Attorney’s Office is the second largest in the state of California and the sixth largest in the nation. The District Attorney’s Office consists of 943 full-time employees in five programs and serves a population of approximately three million residents.

The person appointed by the Board will be expected to complete the current term that expires January 7, 2019.

And now, for the back story. This is how I understand it went down that San Diego is soon to get a new DA b/c the current one is “retiring early” from the job.

A wealthy Mexican national was recently convicted for making illegal campaign contributions when DA Dumanis was running for mayor in 2012. San Diego Sheriff Bill Gore made the intro.

Dumanis feigned ignorance and downplayed the number of times they communicated. Claimed she didn’t know he was funneling money illegally into her campaign. No explanation was ever given as to what prompted Dumanis to write a letter of recommendation for the Mexican’s son to get into UCSD — a man she claimed to have only meant once, briefly.

So Cal US Attorney Laura Duffy mysteriously recused herself from the case involving Dumanis. No one will disclose why. The Mexican national’s attorneys are pressing for an explanation. (It sounds to me like a matter of “If I’m going down, you’re going with me”.) Duffy was recently appointed as a San Diego Superior Court Judge by Governor Brown.

Dumanis has hand-picked her DA successor to be Summer Stephan. Sheriff Gore is also endorsing her.She’s a chief deputy DA who is married to U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw Some reports claim he is the “darling of the biotech industry”. The anti-mandatory vaxxers do not view him as darling. Last summer, he refused to even temporarily halt CA’s mandatory vaccines.

Stephan’s claim to fame is the botched Stephanie Crowe murder investigation in the late 90’s. Three young teens were coerced into falsely confessing to the murder. It costs the county a ton of money for what was done to them and the case has been held out nationally as what not to do to coerce children into false confessions. A transient, Richard Tuitt, was found to have Stephanie’s blood on his clothes. He was convicted but the conviction was ultimately overturned b/c the case was so badly botched. To date, no one has been convicted for the murder of Stephanie Crowe — but millions have been wasted in fruitless, bumbled prosecutions.

Summer Stephan is getting a lot of backing from big names in local politics to be appointed as the interim DA. People are finally started to get upset about the rampant cronyism that goes on in SD local gov’t.

Dumanis is claiming that a reason she is leaving early is b/c she may want to run for County Supervisor.

The Dems are calling for an investigation of Dumanis (and whomever else in that office was involved in the Asano debacle.) They want a pledge that whoever replaces her as the interim DA will not use the status “incumbent” to become the permanent DA in the 2018 elections.

*************

From the Dem’s website 4/20/17: “I’m calling on the County Board of Supervisors to launch an independent investigation headed by a special prosecutor into the Office of the District Attorney’s connection with this far-reaching case – the largest political corruption scandal in San Diego history.”

“Just two days prior to the District Attorney’s resignation announcement, press reports revealed that the DA was a ‘subject of the investigation’ in the Azano corruption saga and had improper contacts regarding the case with the then-U.S. Attorney.

“The public deserves to know the extent of the District Attorney’s involvement in the Azano corruption scandal, and whether any other personnel in the DA’s office acted improperly.

“I’m calling on the County Board of Supervisors to launch an independent investigation headed by a special prosecutor into the Office of the District Attorney’s connection with this far-reaching case – the largest political corruption scandal in San Diego history.

“Adding to a story already steeped in backroom politics and insider dealing, Dumanis’ early resignation now paves the way for the Board of Supervisors to appoint her replacement before the voters have a say. Anyone seeking to become San Diego’s next District Attorney should pledge to support an independent investigation into the DA’s role in this political corruption case.

“Because San Diego’s chief law enforcement officer is implicated, an independent investigation is the only way for justice to be served. This is no time for business-as-usual politics.

“It would be a grievous breach of the public’s trust to appoint a new DA until the independent investigation is concluded. The public has the right to know the full extent of the involvement of personnel in the DA’s office with this scandal.”

I am the Administrator for the Facebook Group “United Against Court Corruption”. I have joined with MANY advocates who are desperate for a change and restructuring of our judicial system. I think it is is time to enlist an arny of advocates who are willing to FIGHT and DEMAND complete changes to our completely failed judicial system. Join with me and my nationwide army of advocates. We will join with you in our common quest for more ethical oversight committees. Please let us know how we can help your alliance.

San Diego Dems are circulating a petition to “Tell County Supervisors to Take Politics Out of the DA’s Office!

District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has announced her resignation, eyeing a run for another office while tainted by the largest political corruption scandal in San Diego history. Now the all-Republican Board of Supervisors will appoint an interim DA — such as Dumanis’ hand-picked Republican successor — who could run for District Attorney in 2018 as an incumbent.

Sign this petition to tell the Board of Supervisors to take insider politics out of appointing and electing our next DA.

We call on the Board to (1) investigate the links between Dumanis’ office and the Jose Anzano scandal, in which more news recently surfaced; and (2) appoint an Interim District Attorney who pledges not to use that office to run for election next year.”

It is nuts that Santa Clara does not have normal business hours. Case filings are down 30% statewide and have been falling like a stone since 2009. There should be ZERO backlogs now given their has been several years to catch up on work. Where is the Judicial Council Staff’s data or Santa Clara Superior Courts workload data showing there is a growing increase in pending cases (a backlog)? I have seen no data to back up that claim at all. This is pure mismangement and spin in CA Courts and they get away with it because nobody call them on it and checks their claims. Where are the checks by the other branches of government? The CA Courts are getting more money today to do far less work than just a few years ago! I have been saying this is not right for several years now. Nobody cares.

I have also been saying in CA Courts there is a culture of few trials and little work on Fridays in many (not all) trial courts. This practice has to change as the public is paying for the judges and staff to work 40 hours a week. It is wrong and I consider it both a form of fraud and theft but they disguise it as the “culture” of the court. There is no excuse for denying the public access for 40 hours a week. There are no funding cuts to the branch at this time. Also remember if there ever are cuts to the branch the judges will still get their full salaries raises.
They do not have to participate in any of the shared pain that executive branch employees must go through (15% furloughs) in times of recessions. The judges have a very sweet deal.

The pay for Court Execs is also way out of control. The corruption to get those jobs is even worse as it is only a select few yes people who the Chief trusts to run the large courts and they keep getting shuffled around from trial court to trial court. I believe since the Chief controls the budgets for trial courts the local judges want to have her trusted people at the helm as a court executive to ensure they get full funding coming in. They keep courts in line by controlling their funding.

If the Judicial Council was democratic and had counter voices then this culture might change. Not likely anytime soon but nice to see a news story on some of these issues. Fight On!

“Under this proposed budget, trial courts receive a little more than a penny for every general fund tax dollar, less than what the courts were receiving before the Great Recession. This is neither fair nor just. We will continue to press for adequate and stable funding for our court system. As I said earlier this year during my State of the Judiciary, “chronic underfunding of the courts is just one way a justice system can become unjust…to keep our checks and balances intact, we need resources to provide justice to the people who need it.”

It is 100% fair and just if the trial courts have less cases coming in the door today than they did in 2009. Her own workload numbers prove the courts have fewer cases yet the public is supposed to pay more for the branch to handle less work. How is that fair Chief?

Today’s installment of Tani’s Follies. Published today, Thursday, May 11, from Courthouse News Service by Maria Dinzeo:

Calif. Courts See No Added Funding in Budget Revise
MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – California Gov. Jerry Brown released his revised budget Thursday, but any mention of increased funding for California’s court system was notably absent.

The news comes as a huge blow to the courts. Earlier this year, judges and court clerks grappled with Brown’s plans to eliminate fines and fees, on which the courts are increasingly relying to stay open.

Brown’s initial January budget plan proposed doing away with $300 civil assessments, which judges can impose on people who don’t show up in court after being charged with traffic infractions, misdemeanors or felonies.

The governor also wants to repeal the suspension of driver’s licenses of people who don’t pay traffic tickets or other fines. While these penalties are spurned by the Brown administration as unfairly punishing the poor, they generate tens of millions in revenue for courts, cities, counties and special state programs. Brown’s May revision promises no new funding to recoup the loss.

State Department of Finance Director Jay Cohen said Thursday that Brown is interested in keeping the judiciary’s budget at its current level.

“We’re always open to conversations about adding more money, but as the governor said, if you put more money in the courts you’re taking from somewhere else,” Cohen said, quickly pointing out that at least the judiciary won’t see its budget cut this year.

“It’s basically the same budget we saw in January,” he said. “We’ve maintained the status quo for the May revision. There are no cuts proposed for the court system as there are in other areas.”

Brown’s January budget added $35.4 million in new funding to support California’s trial courts. The judiciary’s total budget stands at $3.6 billion.

In a statement, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said Brown’s May revision is neither fair nor just.

“Under this proposed budget, trial courts receive a little more than a penny for every general-fund tax dollar, less than what the courts were receiving before the Great Recession. This is neither fair nor just,” she said. “We will continue to press for adequate and stable funding for our court system.”

Cantil-Sakauye’s reaction reflects the central theme of her State of the Judiciary speech in March, where she said the courts cannot fulfill their primary mandate of providing justice without budgetary support.

“We cannot provide the justice that Californians deserve without adequate and stable funding. Inadequate funding and chronic underfunding of the courts is just one way a justice system can become unjust,” she said. “To be sure, a justice system and our checks and balances can fail in the face of fear and prejudice. But they can also fail with lack of funding.”

Note to Queen Feckless: Cry foul all you want – whining poverty and weeping crocodile tears isn’t fooling anyone. In case you missed the message, here it is: Sacramento is no longer interested in rewarding the wasteful spending of public funds gross mismanagement, and foolish and despicable behavior of 455 Golden Gate Avenue and judicial branch administration by giving you more money to do more of the same with. You have plenty of money; learn to spend it wisely. And shut up.

Mirror, mirror
On the wall
Who is the biggest hypocrite
Of them all?

Oh you, Queen Feckless
By every measure across all the land
You are, and remain, by far
The biggest hypocrite
Of them all.

Interesting LA City Watch article “Whitewashing Judicial Misconduct Rules the Day in California” I feel sorry for all the honest branch employees, including judge, who have to work in this broken system.

“The corruptionism that infects the California court system is more complex than, for instance, just the act of someone handing a judge an envelope of money in exchange for a favorable ruling. Rather, it revolves around judges’ believing they are above the law. They can alter facts, conceal evidence, manufacture evidence, intimidate witnesses, and all the while be assured that no one will be able to do anything about it. When a judge writes an opinion that changes the evidence, the appellate court overlooks that falsity and pretends it is true. For example, if a judge changes the undisputed evidence that a Mrs. Jones ran the red light to a Mr. Smith ran the red light, everyone in the system will look the other way. And because of that, the public never learns that Mrs. Jones’ lawyer and the judge are fishing buddies. As the federal court said in January 2015, everyone in the state court system ‘turns a blind eye.

Commission of Judicial Performance’s passion for secrecy.

Some naive people believe that the California Commission of Judicial Whitewashing, er, I mean, Performance, is there to protect the public from wayward judges.

The Commission’s behavior shows that its actual mission is to protect [some] judges rather than the public.”

I see this as an extremely wicked trick they are trying here It is deceptive is because this change is being done to keep the court fee revenue coming on these traffic infractions while at the same time attempting to escape parties claiming their due process rights are being violated in Federal Court.

If the public has no risk of going to jail on their traffic case, since they will be made into civil matters, then perhaps the due process clause isssue will be ignored by the Federal Courts. I swear this is their real unstated plan so they can keep those fees in place!

It is very important to notice there was nothing about ending the court fees on traffic cases as they rely on that money coming in from millions of traffic tickets to pay for the courthouse bonds and for court operations. I say regardless of if a traffic case is criminal or civil the judge hearig the case should not ZERO stake in the outcome of the case or the public’s right to due process and a fair hearing has been violated.

Those fee’s make the judge 100% partisans in the cases so the court benefits greatly when a judge rules in favor of the police. This move by the Chief does nothing to fix that issue. Nothing! Rather it seeks to hide the issue (the court fees) by moving those cases to the civil side so it is less likely to be ended. This allows them to keep the fee revenue coming in longer than it should as they know they are unethical. It is really shameful what they are doing here in my opinion. Those court fees on traffic infractions or civil traffic cases are unconstutional as they make judges into partisans in the case which violates the publics dure process rights to have a neutral party hear their dispute. Those fees must go!

There is another way this is deceptive and this is the WAFM model for staffing. Understand that these infraction traffic cases are clearly less complex matters than even a simple small claims case yet the WAFM currently inflates their value in terms of money coming in for the branch. The branch staffing models for both judges and clerks need to be closely reviewed by the Legislature and Governor to ensure the JC Staff are not overly weighting these traffic cases pretending they are more complex than they really are. The level of mismangement by the Judicial Council is getting obscene with this latest effort and it is done under the falsely stated claim of trying to help the poor. That is total BS! They only care about their money coming in from these fees not reforming to help the poor.

Remember the Chief pretended to fix traffic last year when she ended the practice of having the public pay the fine and fees before they could even have a hearing on their ticket. That appeared to be progress to most people, just as this effort does, but in reality it was all about preserving the court fee revenue. Those fees never went away. Wicked stuff! This is again a pretend reform to mask pure greed and is done so in the name of the poor. WOW! What does it take for the other branches to get involved and go after the Judicial Council? I hope a citizen sues over their due process rights being violated and wins in Federal Court as the traffic “hellhole” is not fixed until the court fees on traffic matters are gone. Fight on!

I am all for attorneys to represent children in dependency cases. Let’s face it, who doesn’t support minors having attorneys in a really bad spot where there are allegations of parental abuse? That said, the branch could easily find $25 million in savings if they just relocated the JC Staff (formerly the AOC) from expensive SF to more cost effective Sacramento where the rest of state government works.

The Judicial Council seeks to frame everything as the other branches are being cruel (cheap) but in reality why should taxpayers pay more for the JC Staff to be housed in very expensive SF? That’s not a rhetorical question on my part. I really want to know why they must be there in SF since it costs more for the exact same bureaucracy for the CA Courts to work at that location. It is very wasteful for the JC to continue that practice to me.

If the public can’t pay for both (attorneys for dependents and digs for administrators in SF) then the JC should say, “Fine! We will move our staff as we care about these abused kids getting attorneys more than we care about our staff’s work location.” That approach I would very much respect! Instead, they just say give us more money, more money and I don’t see much “leadership” or refrom in that approach at all. They actually want $88 million for dependency counsel not just 22 million. That is huge number!

Furthermore, lets see some actual data to go with this “demand” for more money. There were 44,679 dependency cases statewide in 2016 according to the Judicial Council’s own numbers. What the JC data does not show is how many of these depenceny cases had parents who could afford to pay for counsel for the minor in the dispute. Honestly, where is that information in the discussion? Did publicly funded counsel need to be appointed in 100% of the 44,679 dependency matters or was it more like half of the cases? Perhaps it was just 25% of the cases where the parents could not afford to pay? We don’t know as there is no data. Also, could the court set up payment plans for the parents to pay for the cost of the counsel over time so the general public isn’t on the hook on all of these cases? My point is without that data the legislature is blind and the public is stuck paying the bills they don’t understand. Laslty, these cass are not as complex as the judges claim. The JC’s own data shows 1,493 dependency cases were disposed in 2016 without even needing a court hearing! They just settled out of court. Check it out for yourself:

Dependency cases are a small area of law very few people understand and everyone has a soft spot for abused kids so the JC is trying to leverage that gap in the public’s knowledge and use the public’s soft heart (to help abused kids) to lobby for $88 million in funding for the branch. If the JC Staff moved the AOC to Sacramento I’d believe their sincere financial need. Short of that, I urge all legislators and Governor to stand firm and don’t cave to this PR effort by the Chief. There are lots of reforms needed in CA Courts first before more money should be sent to JC to dole out to the trial courts as they see fit. Fight on!

Fire System testing delays opening of $555 million San Diego courthouse

The new state courthouse in downtown San Diego will not open to the public next month as scheduled because workers are re-testing components of the $555.5 million building’s smoke exhaust system, officials said Wednesday.

Probate and family courts were expected to be up and running in the new location at Union and C streets by July 17, and members of the public were expected to show up there to report for jury duty.

But for now, those moves have been put on hold.

“We’re going to provide the court with a schedule within the next few days,” said Mike Courtney, director of the California Judicial Council’s capital construction program.

Courtney explained that although the fire alarm and sprinkler systems at the new courthouse have been approved by the state fire marshal, the fire control panel had to be reprogrammed. Because of the reprogramming, 1,100 smoke dampers in the heating and ventilation system — which help control air flow — have to be retested.

“It takes 15 to 20 minutes per damper,” Courtney said, which when added up amounts to roughly 300 hours of work.

“We’re trying to figure out if that will take two weeks or three weeks or a month,” he said.

San Diego Superior Court Presiding Judge Jeffrey Barton said a contingency plan is in place to deal with delays. He said court staff will be at the new building on July 17 and afterward to redirect people who show up there.

He said the court will also reach out to the local bar associations and other organizations affected by the delay to inform them of the new schedule.

“It’s not unexpected. This building is extraordinarily complicated,” Barton said, noting that the new courthouse is more than 700,000 square feet and there are many logistical, safety and security issues that have to be considered in the move-in process.

In a message sent to the judges Wednesday, Barton wrote: “We will continue to receive information on the inspection status and will announce a new move schedule for an early fall time frame.”

Longtime Superior Court Judge Frederic Link took news of the delay in stride.

“It’s frustrating to the bosses, (but) it shouldn’t make a difference to the judges,” he said. “I’ll get there eventually.”

The new courthouse is the most expensive of the 47 projects statewide funded from increased court filing fees. A dedication ceremony and ribbon cutting was held last month.

The 22-story, 369-foot-high building will replace the County Courthouse at 220 W. Broadway that opened in 1961 at a cost of $11 million. It will also replace the Family Court and Madge Bradley buildings in downtown San Diego.

The new building has 71 courtrooms and will connect to the existing Hall of Justice by a skybridge over C Street.

I think she should be thanking the other branches profusely for the restored funding levels that have been provided in the past few years. CA Courts is getting 35.4 million more this fiscal year from last year yet the Chief Justice is quick to openly complain. That amazes me.

The real story is CA Courts have had a HUGE decline in cases since FY 2008/2009. At that time there were 10.2 million cases in the Superior Courts and the branch received $3.8 billion a year to process them. Today there are just 6.8 million cases statewide but the branch receives $3.6 billion. This means the number of cases coming into courhouses is down 34% yet the state is only able to reduce it’s cost to maintain the CA Courts by a mere 6%.

This inability of the other branches to reduce the cost of CA Courts by very much is why I say CA Courts are being funded extremely well given the grim workload facts. The Chief should be ashamed to be asking for more money when the workload is tanking as bad as it has been. It the caseload of CA Courts was a stock it would be in near free fall. This decline is great for the public but not so great for the branch which I believe is acting entitled to more money even though there is far less workload.

Oh, and it is not going to get better in my opinion. Five million of the 6.8 million cases left are traffic cases and with new technology (self driving cars) there goes that workload down the road. The branch has a reliable 1 to 1.5 million cases (mostly divorces) to count on. That is my future forecast and the branch should prepare to shrink and be less complex so it can best serve the in pro per parties getting their divorces completed. Civil is toast too as most of those caseloads are auto torts. It is a shame to see the branch wasting time by not reforming and the Chief fake complaining when her branch has been quite well funded.

The courts also have zero budget to 1) Pay the long beach rent. 2) Perform (forever deferred) maintenance on existing courthouses. So there is some room for more money but given our friends at the AOC like hiring unlicensed contractors over licensed ones (more on that in a new story coming out this coming Monday) and overpaying them (and likely collecting kickbacks or kickbacks in-kind) and that there exists no one to investigate this, I wouldn’t be giving them money either. I would be moving all the real estate to DGS. (California Department of General Services)

I say if you don’t have the money to afford a mansion don’t buy one. The Long Beach Courthouse is Taj Majah of a building and a nightmare financially for California. It means other courts (Sacramento in particular) will not get funding for a new facility. The blame for that is 100% on the Judicial Council though and no sympathy is due to the “leaders” of CA Courts as they knew what they were doing.

I say the CA Courts should not be in the courthouse construction business at all. As JCW said that function should reside with DGS. The CA Courts got into the court construction world under Vickrey and George who wanted to have total control of everything (due to their massive egos). They got SB 1407 passed when Arnold was Governor and that raised the fines and fees on cases again mostly on traffic tickets. This fine/fee money pays the 5 billion in bonds the branch got for all of the new courthouses. The problem is the judges hearing those traffic cases are no longer 100% neutral figures and the Judicial Council should have known better than to support SB 1407.

Every judge in a traffic or criminal case in CA Courts now indirectly benefits his employer (CA Courts) when he/she rules in favor of the police and imposes that courthouse construction fee on a member of the public. I say that SB 1407 violates the US Constitution’s Due Process clause and I hope the ACLU and others take this issue up.

The risk of Federal Court intervention is why the Chief is now moving traffic cases to the civil side of the branch which is unlike any other state in the nation. The Chief desperately wants to keep those fines and fee funds coming into the branch. She and her JC Staff figure if traffic tickets are made into civil matters the Federal Courts are less likely to rule against them since there is no jail time risk. Regardless of if traffic tickets are civil or criminal I say SB 1407 still violates the Due Process clause and it is also a very a regressive way to pay for courthouses. The people who did this are just horrible morally and for the Judicial Council, a body of 21 judges/justices, to have lobbied for SB 1407 in the first place is shameful. How could they not see this conflict of interest for them as judges where the fines on cases before them paid for the very buildings they sit in? They knew but just wanted the money more!

That same logic also applies to the Judicial Council moving to Sacramento. If they did this the CA Courts could save a ton of money ($25 million) for the State every year. For the Chief to still be complaining about money yet not doing the main thing the California State Auditor suggested to reform the branch shows how weak her claim for additional funding actually is. They don’t want to save money but they will take more money to have a better lifestyle in expensive San Francisco.

Tani is going to do almost nothing significant administratively as Chief Justice and is reduced to giving democracy awards to children at elementary schools. It’s really comical. That’s Ron Geroge’s real legacy! He has left CA Courts with no credibility due to CCMS so his hand picked successor will accomplish virtually nothing big. I say she deserves it too as Tani has failed to actually reform the Judicial Council as she should have done. This is why we all post here for a decade now instead of being on the Judicial Council or in leadership postions ourselves. Desenters in CA Court administration are forced out rather that respected for their alternative perspectives and insights. The insiders run the CA Courts like a mafia. If you don’t play along as a yes man you are let go and then blacklisted. It is autocratic, lame, and totally out of place in California but perfectly like the Trump Administration.

This is the status que for CA Courts. It is a branch administratively dead in the water in my opinion untill it makes some HUGE reforms. Think of the culture at Wells Fargo and how they did not change their board of directors after it’s scandal with fake accounts. That’s the same situation with CA Courts and it’s Judicial Council not changing. I would not put my money in Wells Fargo or invest in them. Similarly the Legislature/Governor are wise to not give the CA Courts more money till they really reform. Thanks for reading this long post. Fight on!

Quote of the Day: “For the Chief to still be complaining about money yet not doing the main thing the California State Auditor suggested to reform the branch shows how weak her claim for additional funding actually is. They don’t want to save money but they will take more money to have a better lifestyle in expensive San Francisco.”

The Chief Justice and judicial branch administration should not, under any current circumstance or argument, be given any additional funding. Not a single dollar, not even a penny. As previously stated, the California State Legislature and the Governor are not interested in rewarding the disgraceful behavior, gross mismanagement, wasteful spending, and outright theft of public funds by judicial branch administration by giving them more money to do more of the same with. The Chief Justice and branch administration have plenty of money; they need to learn to spend it wisely. And shut up.

I don’t know why I bother to post this stuff anymore. There is nothing to be done about any of it. Apologies to all. But there is no other outlet.

San Diego Superior Court to close courtrooms, cut staff because of budget shortfall
Hall of Justice

The San Diego Superior Court is expecting at least a $6 million cut to its budget this fiscal year, leading court authorities to reduce staff, consolidate departments and close courtrooms, all of which will reduce public access.

Because of the state’s funding structure, which is based on workload, San Diego County’s court budget for the fiscal year that began Saturday is $171.8 million, roughly $30 million less than it was in fiscal 2008, said Presiding Judge Jeffrey Barton.

In past budgets, the governor has added some funding to offset the reductions, but that’s not happening this year.

Among several cost-cutting moves, court authorities have asked employees, including some court commissioners, to volunteer to take buyouts. About 60 people have applied, Barton said, meaning the court can avoid layoffs for now.

Employees who have volunteered include courtroom clerks, business office clerks, research attorneys, managers, supervisors, family court counselors and court reporters.

“It runs the gamut of the ranks of the court,” said Barton, adding that authorities are still trying to decide where to make the staff cuts to minimize the effect on the public. That could include as many as four court commissioners, who hear and make decisions on family and juvenile court cases, criminal, traffic, small claims and unlawful detainer cases.

Salaries make up 84 percent of the court’s budget.

Barton said one of the more “painful” reductions will come when the Superior Court closes small claims and unlawful detainer operations in Vista and transfers that business to downtown San Diego.

“That’s similar to what we did in 2012,” Barton said. “We closed civil, small claims and unlawful detainer in South and East and brought that downtown. Now we’re bringing this additional work downtown, and it enables us to process more with fewer people by centralizing the operations.”

The court is planning to eliminate the use of student workers and retired employees who were allowed to return to work for up to 120 days. It will also stop providing court reporters in family court proceedings and reduce employee overtime.

Some judges will be asked to work multiple assignments without staff, essentially floating from department to department, filling in for other judges who call in sick or take vacations.

There are 149 judicial officers serving on the San Diego Superior Court bench, at least two of whom do not have their own clerks and other staff, Barton said. Judges who serve on the appellate panel share staff members.

“We’re looking to close 10 courtrooms,” said Michael Roddy, executive officer of the San Diego Superior Court. “Because at the end of the day, given the number of staff that we’ll have left to us, we either dramatically cut additional public services or you start to close some courtrooms.”

The earliest those courtrooms would close would be in September or October, he said.

Other changes include closing juvenile dependency operations at the courthouses in downtown San Diego and Chula Vista, and moving them to the Juvenile Court building on Meadow Lark Drive in Kearny Mesa. At the end of the process, there will be one fewer dependency department, which deals with cases involving children who have been abused or neglected by a parent or caregiver.

Barton said he and others are looking into closing a juvenile delinquency department toward the end of the year. The delinquency courts deal with cases involving minors accused of breaking the law.

The court will also close a civil department.

Business office hours at each of the court branches, which had been reduced in previous years but were restored last year, will remain the same. The offices open at 7:30 a.m. Monday through Friday, except court holidays, and close at 4 p.m.

“None of the judges on this court want to do this,” Barton said. “None of us think that these are really good ideas for public service, but we have no choice. We can’t deficit spend and support our operations so we have to cut our operation. So we’ve carefully considered the least harmful of a series of bad alternatives.

“People are going to be upset, we understand that,” Barton said. “We can’t run departments with money we don’t have.”

Barton and Roddy said several factors led to the budget cut, including pension responsibilities and reduced revenues, but most of it is due to the funding structure put in place in 2013, which was designed to make funding allocations for the courts more equitable across the state.

Roddy said the new funding model has in recent years provided more court operating funds to counties that that have grown significantly in recent years, such as Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno, Kern and Stanislaus, and less to those such as San Diego, San Francisco, Orange and Alameda counties, which have seen less growth comparatively.

“That $6 million is our best case. It very likely could get worse,” Roddy said, explaining that he expects further budgetary declines over the next few years.

“We don’t see any stability at this point,” he said.

A new $555.5 million Central Courthouse building in downtown San Diego is expected to open to the public later this year, but money for that project came from a fund that can only be used for state court building projects and had nothing to do with San Diego’s budget issues, officials said.

I still say this change is being done primarily as a way to preserve the court construction fees (not to end harsh fees for defendants as they claim). They want to keep those court construction fees going at almost any cost and notice they make no mention of ending them in their question and answer session.

That said, their link says several other states handle traffic as civil, which I was not aware of, and if that is the case then I have to stand corrected on my earlier post when I said no other state is handling traffic cases in civil. They would be in a very small minority if they move them to civil. Nevertheless, I stand corrected. See, that is how one does it. A concession of a mistake or of a point being corrected. The CA Courts can learn from my example here since they seem to never admit to any mistakes. They just move on and pretend like they had no part in any of it (CCMS).

It is nice to see them openly say 75% of the criminal “caseload” is actually just traffic tickets. These are not judge intensive cases at all. Most tickets are paid online by the public (“defendants”) requiring ZERO judge time. These are the 5 million tickets (“cases”) the branch takes full credit for in justifying the 1,700 judges they have already and it is how they claim to need hundreds more judges. So yeah, there is much more to this story. Fight On!

I have great compassion for the workers in SF having been laid off from a CA trial court due to the “budget” myself during the great recession. I have also gone through furloughs in the Executive Branch since then so I know it is very hard to take a pay cut to help avoid layoffs. Nevertheless, I remain a huge fan of WAFM as it bases the budgets of courts on cases (work).

It is important to remember the CA Courts got a net increase in funding statewide for FY 2017/2018. There are actually zero cuts to the judicial branch as a whole from the Legislature and Governor this year. Also, the article failed to talk about how much SF’s caseload has changed which I think is a huge gap in the reporting and I like Courthouse News very much. The PJ for SF talked openly about the funding cuts ($5.3 million less than last year) but what about their caseload drop? If Courthouse News included the SF case filings data I think the story would be far more balanced. I believe SF has less cases so they got less funding. No crisis here.

I hope Courthouse News also follows up on this story to see how many of those judges actually do indeed give up some of their salaries to help their staff and to show they are sharing in the pain. The judges don’t have to take a cut in pay at all under the law so I wonder how many will feel a moral obligation to do so. Judges make like $200,000 a year and clerks make far less yet the court staff take 100% of the financial hits when the workload falls. Now that is real a story.

I always appreciate your thoughts, MaxRebo, especially because this place is a graveyard lately, yet you still continue to post.. But in my opinion WAFM is mostly a load of crap. Another invented and convoluted metric designed by the AOC in order to suck up money for themselves and justify not sending it to the trial courts.

The JC/AOC continues to be complicit in decimating and destroying the trial courts, resulting in layoffs of a further huge number of trial court workers, reduced hours and services to the public, but yet not diminish the number of judges by one single one. Not that I’m advocating for that. But in what world does that make sense? This world. Because you can’t make this shit up! Sharing the pain? Spare me. Perhaps this video seems overstated, but the bottom line is that they’re all part of the club and you ain’t in it, and it applies across the board.

I posted here several months back about a new online publication called ExParte and a reporter who got her finger broken by a deputy sheriff for using her cell phone to film in a California courthouse records room. ExParte has started publishing.

One of the very first articles sheds light on how expensive and difficult it is for reporters and others to obtain copies of court docs in CA. Interesting statistics. The article says they charge 675% more p/pg than Kinkos (and you can be sent to jail for using your cell phone to make electronic copies!).

Here’s the article. They are calling for a CA legislative bill to stop the practice of unreasonably obstructing the ability to copy court records.

“In October 2017, Santa Clara County Presiding Judge Patricia Lucas, an advisory member of the California Judicial Council, wrote a ‘Standing Order’ banning photography anywhere in courthouse facilities, including the court records room. A violation of the order subjects a person to 6 months in jail under Penal Code 166: violation of a court order. At least one prosecution is already underway.”

I have had a most excellent Valentine’s Day hanging out in paradise reminiscing with people who I love. THEY make me stronger. Look out, Tani! I am coming after you for running a criminal enterprise called the California judicial branch.